Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites

Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites

Disturbing audio has emerged of White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a previous white paper called for banning “conspiracy
theories,” demanding that websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly
included on political blogs.

In an audio excerpt of an interview which was posted on the Breitbart.tv website today, Sunstein discusses how conservative websites should provide
links to liberal websites and vice versa or even how political blogs should be made to include pop ups that show “a quick argument

now what this means is if ATS wanted to break something it would first need to be approved by the Federal Government. and the fed's would be able to
add what ever they wanted to "show the other side". now what does that mean? If I was to public an artical saying that the Gov't is bad they can
change that to make them seem good. This would mark the end of America. I know that has been said a BILLION times before but lets think. no more free
press. So lets say Obama is molesting little kids and snorting coke all day well we would never know. Lets say we nuked china we would not know. 100%
controlled media. that is oblivious the extreme of it but it is possible and shows how much power it gives them.

I recommencement you contact him and let him know you do not agree with him. be kind do not be like " SCREW YOU! I HATE YOU!" be intelligent and
mature. a special thanks to ProtoplasmicTravele for giving us this info.

This doesn't suprise me at all. Sunstein wants to control all the media that disagrees with the Obama administration,including the internet which
would necessarily curtail your right to free speech.
When are people going to take these threats for what they actually are?
We are being systematicaly stripped of our rights,and the mindless masses stand and cheer.

What to say, what to say. We already know most of the media bows at obama's feet. I mean just look at it, if President Bush was still in office
during this mess in the Gulf what do you think the press' responce would be towards the White House? Now look at the responce the press has with
obama in control. Face it their already bought an paid for. The internet? Oh, you know obama's chomping at the bit to control that.

Sunstein is an evil bastard so I'm not too surprised that this came from his mouth. Looks like we are headed in that direction though, but only if
we allow draconian bs to happen. Get this out to the herd and maybe we can get a few people pissed off.

If Sunstein really believes that Americans would even remotely put up with some commie pinko plan like this, he needs a few more sessions in the
woodshed with his dreadful uncle, or maybe that was his problem in the first place, but one thing is certain, he is seriously damaged goods, and so is
everyone in that little circle of ethical deviency where he hides..
sorry for all of those commas

It is absolutely mind boggling the way people have changed since JFK's days... People were far from perfect then, but if someone, anyone, suggested
things like this back then, they would have had their lives obliterated in all forums and circles.

I believe that when they do that, then we all should take a page from political history. In the past, long before the advent of the internet and
newspapers, when people were wanting to put out an opposing political view, what they did was to print and put out a pamplets, then gave them out.
Now here is the idea, they do that, and then what all we should do, is starting to just use the technology and get some old printing presses and start
to put out the information to the general public at large. Yes it would cost, but if you look at it as a means that would end up stopping the
government in its tracks, it would be a necessary expense, protected under the freedom of Speech and the press. As it is just an opinion, carefully
construsted arguments would sway public opinion. Enough cities do that and the federal government would then end up having to divert resources that
it can not afford to do such to try to counter if not just give up.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I believe that when they do that, then we all should take a page from political history. In the past, long before the advent of the internet and
newspapers, when people were wanting to put out an opposing political view, what they did was to print and put out a pamplets, then gave them out.
Now here is the idea, they do that, and then what all we should do, is starting to just use the technology and get some old printing presses and start
to put out the information to the general public at large. Yes it would cost, but if you look at it as a means that would end up stopping the
government in its tracks, it would be a necessary expense, protected under the freedom of Speech and the press. As it is just an opinion, carefully
construsted arguments would sway public opinion. Enough cities do that and the federal government would then end up having to divert resources that
it can not afford to do such to try to counter if not just give up.

Why wait? The Republic may not be dead, but its pulse is weak. Cheyne-Stokes, i believe is what it is called.

Our nation needs patriots among The People to enforce the constitution. You have a great idea. It should be put to use today. 10 minutes ago.

Probably getting tired of the brithers and the fake moonlanders theorists. I am both and personally this administration has to be the most corrupt one
since Eisenhower I believe. It is a sad world we live in and according to the webbot gurus, they say it is going to get worse.

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law
School.

He is also a friend

Of course, that is how he was appointed Czar by Obama. No surprise there.
Let's continue though.

Well, I guess it comes once again as no surprise to the Constitution believing Americans in this country.

Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education
outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campuses.

Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system
of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our
government is just the opposite.

At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate
commercial (property) entities.

Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in
this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.

When it was announced in 2008 that Cass Sunstein would be joining the Harvard Law School faculty, Kagan said:

“Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time — the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential.
His work in any one of the fields he pursues — administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law,
environmental law, to name a non-exhaustive few — would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars; the combination is singular and
breathtaking.”

Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but
contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:

“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the
relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics).”

Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:

“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its
communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while
communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”

In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled “Climate Change
Justice,” which held that it was “desirable” for America to pay “justice” to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that
would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to ”distributive justice.”

Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:

* “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be
accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”
* “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the
agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive
mechanisms are imaginable.”
* “If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the
world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional
foreign-aid alternatives.”
* “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of
self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

As you can see, this is all part of Obama's master plan to bring Socialism to the US through stealth, subterfuge, and appointees to positions where
this will happen. He is, one-by-one, placing his socialist friends in positions where they can accomplish this "peaceful" takeover of the United
States.

These people are a real agenda driven crew, but I for one, don’t believe England is trying to retake control of the United States Inc., I believe
they in fact incorporated the United States Inc, back in 1782, when they named it in the Treaty of Paris that ended the revolutionary war, and always
have been in control of the United States, Inc., they just like us to think we are in control of it.

Yet there is no doubt that the current administration is trying to institute more of the UK’s nanny state policies as well as saddle us with as much
debilitating debt to the London Based International Banking Cartel, on behalf of their Roman Masters.

In part if you listen carefully to what the current conventional wisdom is, that the demographics they consider to be favorable for a socialization
initiative are trending towards eventually favoring them.

Unfettered immigration into the welfare state is delineating the previous White Anglo Saxon Protestant majority that leans towards trying to salvage
as much Constitutional Government as possible.

Yet sadly those so minded cling to the belief that the electoral system still provides some hope through the two party system to do that, which is in
my humble opinion completely self defeating thinking, since all the candidates are preselected by the Shadow Corporate Government, and well beholden
to them, before they are even run for the offices, on platforms of usually false and vague promises.

We seem to be up a creek without a paddle. Thank goodness I keep spares, as well as whips and floggers in the closet!

One if by land, two if by sea, but let us not forget, three if by the Internet!

LoL! This sounds like someone is spreading disinformation. Because in order to kill my freedom of speech they would have to take away peoples 2nd
Amendment rights. Yes 2nd because you need to take that one to take any of the rest. As long as I don’t point my finger at any specific person with
wild claims or misrepresent facts, I can spread my opinion freely. Plus our Gumment is big but I don’t think they could corral the internets,
intarwebs either. Of course this is all just my opinion, I may be wrong but I really don’t think so.

Yup Glenn Beck is insane and has no idea what he is talking about!!! Beck has been telling people about this guy for months now. You might not care
for Fox News but Glenn has a staff of people working on things like this so he can talk about it on his show. Glenn does not lie and only gives the
information to the people. He backs it up with audio and written evidence that a good percentage of these "czars" are all socialist, marxists, and
communists. Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Paul Volcker, Kenneth Feinberg and Van Jones(no longer the Green Jobs Czar but very much still involved).

This President is a socialists living by the rules set forth by Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals. Anybody that is still drinking the kool-aid is
either insane or a socialist. Also other "czar" positions yet to be filled include Behavioral Science Czar, Internet Fairness Czar, Copyright Czar,
Income Redistribution Czar, and Voter List Czar to name a few.

Some of you might say that these "Czars" have no power but is having a say in policy set forth by the President not having power? Obama talks to
these people everyday to try and figure out what to do next as they "Progress" towards total state control.

All this recent news has given me a very bad headache today. People think that i don't look like the political type, but after hearing about this on
the Alex Jones show today, my mind just wanted to explode. I am so sick of living in a world full of conspiring tyrants. I ask questions about
Fluoride and no one even knows what that is. I speak about the TRUTH, and everyone thinks, i think too much. Honestly, i wouldn't consider hurting
myself because of New World Order agendas, since they are already poisoning me with air borne chemicals and fluoride, but i honestly feel, this
wasn't the way intended for us to live, i feel we all deserve so much more than this.

If freedom of speech and thought is revoked, then one of the most important pillars of a true democratic society would be destroyed. If what we say
and think has to be in line with the government's agenda, then what is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship? Of course, you would
definitely find some sheeple who would say "Those conspiracy theorists are a lunatic bunch anyways. Hence, our government is right in enforcing
regulations on them". This is nothing but scientific dictatorship of the information age.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.